5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mariupol.
6.  According to the applicant, on 25 December 1999 he lent 3,400 United States dollars (USD) to S. The latter had repaid part of his debt and had agreed to meet the applicant on 18 April 2000 to pay back the remainder, which according to the applicant was USD 2,030.
7.  On 11 April 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant following a complaint by S. that the applicant had extorted money from him.
8.  On 18 April 2000 at around 3 to 4 p.m. and during the applicant’s meeting with S., the applicant was arrested by police officers of the Mariupol Department for the Prevention of Organised Crime (співробітники Маріупольського ВБОЗ УБОЗ УМВС України) and taken to a police station. Two passers-by, B. and Bo., provided written statements on the same day to the Head of the Mariupol Department for the Prevention of Organised Crime to the effect that the applicant had been talking to S. and F. (S.’s sister) on the street when the policemen arrived and asked him to follow them. The applicant had tried to run away and to throw something from his pocket. The policemen had tried to stop the applicant but he had resisted, sworn at and threatened the policemen. He was handcuffed, put “with difficulties” into B.’s car and taken to the police station. The sum of USD 1,500 and some personal belongings had been confiscated from the applicant. In the report drawn up in relation to the applicant’s arrest, it was stated that the applicant was arrested at 9 p.m. on suspicion of committing a crime, because he could otherwise have absconded.
9.  According to the applicant, from 3 to 9 p.m. on 18 April, and on 26 April 2000, he had been beaten in the police station and had been tortured with the use of an electric current.
10.  On 21 April 2000 the prosecutor of Mariupol authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention because he “had committed a serious crime and was likely to abscond and pervert the course of justice”. The applicant, who was questioned on the same day, submitted that he had been ill-treated by the policemen. Following these submissions, the investigating officer ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant (see paragraph 19).
11.  By August 2000 the pre-trial investigation regarding the charges against the applicant had been completed and the case was transferred to court. According to the applicant, during the examination of his case by the court, twenty-one court hearings were postponed because of the victim’s failure to appear.
12.  On 15 April 2002 the Prymorskiy District Court at Mariupol sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment for physically threatening behaviour made with the aim of securing the repayment of debt, and released him on two years’ probation. In particular, it was found that the applicant had threatened S. and that on 2 February 2000 the applicant, together with unknown accomplices, had beaten S., as confirmed by a medical examination of S.
13.  The applicant submitted extracts from the records of court hearings in his criminal case. On one undated separate page, it is mentioned that police officer R. testified in court that the applicant had suffered a kidney contusion and two broken ribs. Witnesses Sh. and Shi. testified that they had witnessed the applicant’s arrest and that he had been handcuffed and put into a van, but that nobody had beaten him.
14.  On 23 May 2003 the Donetsk Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction of 15 April 2002.
15.  On 13 January 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s application for leave to appeal in cassation. According to the applicant, he had not been informed about the date of the hearing. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been present at the hearing, whilst the prosecutor had been present and had been heard by the judges. The applicant had received a copy of that decision only on 14 April 2004.
16.  On 19 April 2000 the applicant was taken to the Mariupol Town Emergency Hospital (Маріупольська міська лікарня швидкої медичної допомоги). Upon examination it was noted that the applicant had suffered blows to his back and the left side of his chest, and also had a kidney contusion and haematuria (red blood cells in his urine).
17.  On 24 April 2000 the applicant’s mother requested that a prosecutor institute criminal proceedings against the policemen who had subjected her son to ill-treatment.
18.  On the same date the applicant was placed in the Mariupol Pre-Trial Detention Centre No. 7 (Слідчий ізолятор № 7 м. Маріуполя, hereinafter “the SIZO”). Upon his arrival he complained of headache and difficulties in urination and breathing. He was examined by the SIZO doctor who noted that the applicant had haematuria and an extensive haematoma on his chest.
19.  On 5 May 2000 a forensic medical examination found that the applicant had suffered minor bodily injuries, comprising numerous bruises on his chest, on the right side of his back and on the hips. The examiner found that these bruises could have been inflicted on 18 April 2000 by blows from fists and feet or by the applicant falling down. As for the two broken ribs, the expert noted that on an X-ray of 19 April 2000 it was visible that the applicant had a consolidated fracture of two ribs. Therefore, this injury was not taken into consideration as it had been inflicted earlier than 18 April 2000.
20.  On 27 May 2000 the Head of the Mariupol Department for the Prevention of Organised Crime requested that the Mariupol Town Emergency Hospital submit certain X-ray images of the applicant’s ribs to him. According to the applicant, these X-rays were subsequently lost by the police.
21.  On 10 May 2000, following a complaint lodged by the applicant’s mother, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office (прокуратура Донецької області – “the Regional Prosecutor’s Office”) refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen. It stated that during his arrest on 18 April 2000 the applicant had disobeyed police orders, had sworn and had tried to run away, and that the policemen had therefore been forced to use martial arts on the applicant. S., who was questioned during the investigation, testified that on 18 April 2000 he had had a fight with the applicant, that the policemen had then come and used force against the applicant, and that the applicant had fallen on a fence but “finally was brought to the police station”.
22.  On 19 and 20 May 2000 the applicant was examined by a SIZO physician. The applicant complained of pain in his back, heart pain, headache, and haematuria. His diagnosis was the same as upon his arrival at the SIZO and he was prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug.
23.  On 10 October and 15 November 2000 the applicant was again examined by a SIZO physician and diagnosed with acute post-traumatic pyelonephritis on his left side.
24.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant was released from the SIZO. On 24 November 2000 he was hospitalised at the Azov Central Basin Hospital (Азовська центральна басейнова лікарня на водному транспорті м. Маріуполя). He was diagnosed with post-traumatic kidney deformations, possible chronic nephritis and haematuria. In the extract from the applicant’s medical file provided by this hospital it is also mentioned that in April 2000 the applicant had suffered two broken ribs.
25.  The applicant stayed in hospital until the end of December 2000. On 21 December 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Nephrological Ward of the Donetsk Regional Clinical Territorial Medical Unit (нефрологічне відділення Донецького обласного клінічного територіального медичного об’єднання).
26.  The applicant complained of, amongst other things, ill-treatment by the policemen and his unlawful conviction to a Member of Parliament, V. V. redirected the complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office (Генеральна Прокуратура України). On 11 March 2001 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that his complaint had been transferred to the Prymorskyy District Court at Mariupol, which had exclusive competence to deal with such complaints.
27.  On 14 March 2001 the Prymorskyy District Court sent the applicant’s complaints to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office because the applicant had requested that criminal proceedings be brought against certain people and the Regional Prosecutor’s Office had failed to address this request. Moreover, the court found that the examination of the applicant’s complaints did not fall within its competence.
28.  On 6 April 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court, following a complaint lodged by the applicant, quashed the above-mentioned decision of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of 10 May 2000. The court pointed out the need to investigate the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the policemen in the police station, to question a number of witnesses (B., Bo., S.’s sister and a policeman, indicated by the applicant) and to conduct an additional expert medical examination of the applicant. Moreover, the court noted that it had not been established during the investigation exactly how the applicant had resisted the policemen and who in particular had used martial arts techniques against him.
29.  On the same date the General Prosecutor’s Office again redirected the applicant’s complaints, originally received from V. and the Secretariat of the Ombudsman of Ukraine (Секретаріат Уповноваженого Верховної Ради України з прав людини), to the Prymorskyy District Court for consideration.
30.  On 27 April 2001 the Prymorskyy District Court returned the applicant’s complaints to the General Prosecutor’s Office for the same reasons as mentioned above.
31.  However, on 18 May 2001 the General Prosecutor’s Office sent the applicant’s complaints back to the court, indicating that their examination fell within the exclusive competence of the court.
32.  On 23 May 2001 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen owing to the lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. Police officers R., M., P. and Va. testified that during his arrest the applicant had behaved very aggressively and had insulted F. The applicant had been struck on the face three times by S. and had fallen to the ground. In order to arrest the applicant, the policemen had used martial arts techniques, as the applicant had been struggling and kicking and did not want to get into the car. S. and F. also confirmed the above findings. No force had been used against the applicant in the police station. The prosecutor also noted that, according to the forensic medical examination of 5 May 2000, the applicant had broken his ribs before 18 April 2000 and had been suffering from kidney disease since 1994.
33.  On 29 October 2001 the Voroshylovskyy District Court at Donetsk quashed the decision of 23 May 2001 and remitted the case materials to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation. The court indicated that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office had failed to comply with the instructions given by the Donetsk Regional Court on 6 April 2001. In particular, witnesses B. and Bo. had not been questioned and an additional forensic medical examination had not been conducted.
34.  From 7 to 26 December 2001 the applicant underwent further treatment at the Azov Central Basin Hospital. He was diagnosed with a recurrent and persistent haematuria.
35.  On 12 July 2002 a forensic medical examination found that at the material time the applicant presented with light bodily injuries: bruises all over the right side of his chest and back, on the right hip and on the left shoulder, small scratches on his wrists and puffiness in the area of the sixth and seventh ribs. The report stated that such injuries could have been inflicted during the applicant’s arrest in the circumstances indicated by the policemen or in the circumstances described by the applicant. It was also stated that the laboratory findings had failed to confirm the kidney contusion. However, the back contusion could have caused temporary (five to seven days) haematuria. In particular, the applicant had suffered a contusion on the lower part of his back, which could have led to a short‑term (five to seven days) kidney concussion. In the absence of the X‑ray images of the applicant’s ribs, it was also impossible to establish whether the applicant had suffered broken ribs.
36.  On 2 August 2002 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint against the policemen on account of a lack of corpus delicti. The prosecutor referred to the findings of the forensic medical examinations of 5 May 2000 and 12 July 2002. As to the two broken ribs, it was mentioned that on an unidentified date the applicant had been X-rayed at Mariupol Town Emergency Hospital and diagnosed with an old fracture of two ribs. Since the applicant had refused to explain the origin of this fracture, it was concluded that it had occurred before 18 April 2000. During the pre-trial investigation, S. had testified that he had hit the applicant three times on his head and body because the applicant had insulted his sister. The applicant had fallen on a metal fence. Later, the applicant had resisted the policemen, who had then used martial arts techniques and had handcuffed him. The applicant had broken free from the police but had fallen down. He had then been put into the car. The policemen, M., R. and P. confirmed these submissions. R. also testified that S. had hit the applicant whilst the policemen had been holding the applicant by the hands. While being put in the car, the applicant had also hit the car door.
37.  On 29 January 2003 the Voroshylovskyy District Court quashed the above decision and remitted the case materials to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation. The court referred to the previous court findings of 6 April 2001 and 29 October 2001 and underlined the investigator’s repeated failure to question witnesses B. and Bo. The court also pointed out the contradictions in the policemen’s statements as regards the circumstances of the use of force against the applicant and the blows inflicted by S. In particular, the court indicated the absence of any injuries on the applicant’s head, whereas S. had submitted that he had hit the applicant on the head three times.
38.  On 24 March 2003 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen and S., repeating the same arguments as in its previous decisions. In addition, S. and F. submitted that when police officer R. had showed the applicant his police card, the applicant had knocked it out of his hands, rushed to S. and gripped his throat, whereupon S. had hit the applicant several times. Therefore, the use of force by the police and S. had been justified.
39.  On 23 June 2003 the Voroshylovskyy District Court quashed the above decision and remitted the case materials to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation. The court reiterated its findings from the decision of 29 January 2003 and indicated that the prosecutor had failed to verify whether the applicant’s injuries could have been inflicted on him in the circumstances indicated by the applicant – that is to say, in the police station.
40.  Between 20 May 2004 and 27 July 2005 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen on three further occasions, until on the last-mentioned date criminal proceedings for abuse of authority were finally instituted against the policemen of the Mariupol Department for the Prevention of Organised Crime.
41.  However, on 20 December 2005 the proceedings against the officers were terminated on account of the lack of evidence of a crime.
42.  On 15 March 2006 the above decision was quashed by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. The Regional Prosecutor’s Office determined that the applicant should be given victim status, should be questioned and that it should be decided whether a further forensic medical examination was necessary.
43.  On 10 July 2006 the applicant was given victim status and questioned on the next day.
44.  On 19 July 2006 the senior investigation officer of the Mariupol Prosecutor’s Office terminated the proceedings in the case for the absence of evidence of a crime.
45.  On 19 October 2006 the Zhovtnevyy District Court quashed the above decision and remitted the case for additional investigation. The court expressly noted that police officer P. should be questioned, that the applicant’s lawyer should be allowed to participate in the case and that the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies should be clarified.
46.  On 6 December 2006 the Mariupol Prosecutor’s Office (прокуратура м. Маріуполя) again terminated the proceedings in the case for the absence of evidence of a crime.
47.  On 15 January 2007 the prosecutor of Mariupol quashed the above decision and remitted the case for additional investigation.
48.  Following the prosecutor’s remittal, some additional investigatory actions were held. Officer P. was questioned again. He testified that he had seen the applicant lying on the floor in police officer R.’s office. R. had not allowed P. to enter the office, so he had not seen exactly what was happening in there. Face-to-face confrontations had taken place between Sh. and V. and the police officers (Sh. and V. are the applicant’s alleged acquaintances who had testified during the investigation of the criminal case against the applicant that they had witnessed the applicant’s apprehension by the police but that they had not seen that any force had been used on him). As a result it was concluded that “V.’s testimonies had been rebutted”. It had been impossible to check similar testimonies made by Shi., another witness of the applicant’s arrest, because her whereabouts were unknown. The applicant’s mother and the applicant’s neighbour Zh., who had allegedly been questioned earlier in the investigation, stated that the applicant had had no injuries before 17 April 2000.
49.  On 9 April 2007 the Mariupol Prosecutor’s Office terminated the proceedings in the case for the absence of evidence of a crime. The prosecutor referred to previous decisions in the case, the testimonies of the applicant, police officers and witnesses, and to the conclusions of the forensic medical examinations of 5 May 2000 and 12 July 2002. It was determined that during his arrest the applicant had resisted the police officers. The police officers testified that the applicant had hit them and had tried to escape so they had used force on him and had “literally dragged him to a minibus”. Since the applicant had also offended F., her brother S. had several times hit the applicant, causing him to fall on the metal fence.
50.  On 6 May 2008 the Zhovtnevyy District Court at Mariupol upheld the above decision. The court noted the contradictory evidence given by those who had been involved or witnessed the events in question, but concluded that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted on him by S. and by the police officers when he had resisted his arrest.
51.  On 2 June 2008 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal referred to the findings of the Zhovtnevyy District Court and upheld its decision.
52.  On 17 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.
53.  On 30 August 2004 the Zhovtnevyy District Court found in part for the applicant and awarded him 8,170.80 hryvnias (UAH) in respect of pecuniary damage, UAH 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and UAH 1,260 in costs and expenses to be paid by the State. The above damage had resulted from the seizure of his personal belongings such as keys and money during his arrest on 18 April 2000.
54.  On 2 November 2005 the Zhovtnevyy District Court again found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 2,676.03 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, together with costs and expenses, in connection with the unlawful seizure of two cameras in the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
55.  According to the applicant, these decisions were enforced in full.